Make my decision for me

[robertdrake]

Just can't make up my mind what lens I should get. I have a 20D, so I should be able to compensate for a slow lens, right. Anyway, I'm looking for something to take shots of my son's soccer games and occasional plays he's in (indoors, of course). I was considering these two options:

1. 70-200L f4
2. 100 macro F2.8

I like the zoom because I covers a large range, without having to eventually buy a 200mm and the added expense and weight.

OTOH, I like the 100 macro since its a faster lens, lighter than the zoom, and I can do macro photography (which I'd like to get back into).

The zoom also worries me because of all the reports of backfocusing.

[timmyquest]

There is no question, 200mm is hardly long enough for soccer games. The 100mm macro lens is a macro lens.

Get the 70-400, you'll love it. I can assure you.

And when in doubt, extension tubes.

[robertdrake]

70-400?

[timmyquest]

70-400?

Right, 70-200...sorry

But hey, that'd be a cool lens :roll:

[PacAce]

There is no question, 200mm is hardly long enough for soccer games. The 100mm macro lens is a macro lens.

Get the 70-400, you'll love it. I can assure you.

And when in doubt, extension tubes.

Did you mean a tele-converter instead of an extension tube? I'm sure you did, like 1.4X TC. :)

[defordphoto]

1. 70-200L f4
The zoom also worries me because of all the reports of backfocusing.

:?: First I have heard of that one.

Anyway, if you want The Lens, then get the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. Great combo.

And, out of curiosity, how exactly would a 20D allow you to "compensate for a slow lens"?

[defordphoto]

There is no question, 200mm is hardly long enough for soccer games. The 100mm macro lens is a macro lens.

Get the 70-400, you'll love it. I can assure you.

And when in doubt, extension tubes.

Did you mean a tele-converter instead of an extension tube? I'm sure you did, like 1.4X TC. :)

HAH! I missed that faux pas. Mercy me! Shooting soccer with extension tubes.

Maybe the blades of grass, eh Timmy? :oops:

:wink:

[robertdrake]

1. 70-200L f4
The zoom also worries me because of all the reports of backfocusing.

:?: First I have heard of that one.

Got to dpreview, can't miss it. Its a common complaint.

Anyway, if you want The Lens, then get the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. Great combo.

Too pricy...and the extra weight would add extra shake, so I'd be no further ahead.

And, out of curiosity, how exactly would a 20D allow you to "compensate for a slow lens"?

Crank up the ISO to 1600, which would be too noisy on a 10D or Rebel but apparently fine on a 20D.

[Headcase650]

Indoor plays will be very dark, more than likely f/4 will not be be fast enough.
Whats your budget? Fast glass in other brands is much cheaper, but for the pure canon user its out if the question, many people are very happy with their sigmas and tamrons and some other brands.

Look here for reviews

http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx

Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex hsm is highly rated and with a 1.4 teleconv it will get pretty good reach for soccer. From all the pics and reviews Ive seen the focus is slightly slower than USM and the image quality is maybe 5-10% not as sharp wide open with slight purple fringing at the long end. but you get all this at half the price of a conon 70-200 2.8 "L"

[defordphoto]

[quote=robertdrake]1. 70-200L f4
The zoom also worries me because of all the reports of backfocusing.

:?: First I have heard of that one.

Got to dpreview, can't miss it. Its a common complaint.

Oh no. I refuse to frequent that mess. However, I frequent quite a few boards and have never read of the f/4 having a backfocus problem.

Anyway, if you want The Lens, then get the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. Great combo.

Too pricy...and the extra weight would add extra shake, so I'd be no further ahead.

With IS you would! ;) Yeah, I know, even more $$$

And, out of curiosity, how exactly would a 20D allow you to "compensate for a slow lens"?

Crank up the ISO to 1600, which would be too noisy on a 10D or Rebel but apparently fine on a 20D.

Good point. The 20D and MKII are pretty clean at those speeds and even 3200 is not bad when cleaned up.

So, then, I'd vote for the 70-200 f/4.

[timmyquest]

Aparently you guys missed this line:

I like the 100 macro since its a faster lens, lighter than the zoom, and I can do macro photography (which I'd like to get back into).


I meant extension tubes.

[mdude85]

last nite I tried shooting a soccer game at 210 mm. It was impossible ... the field is way too long, even if you stand in the middle of the sideline. Just a thought.

[Olegis]

Crank up the ISO to 1600, which would be too noisy on a 10D or Rebel but apparently fine on a 20D.

ISO 1600 is VERY acceptable with 10D (never used a 300d, so I wouldn't speak about it. Drisley had very fine images at ISO 1600 with his 300D, I think). You can see my results in the following galleries, most of the images were shot at ISO 1600 -

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/playandmusic2&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/olegis/street_theatre&page=all

The high ISO performance may be better with 20D, but in no way ISO 1600 is "too noisy" with 10D - that I can assure you. Even ISO 3200 is quite acceptable in some circumstances.